And in 2001, there was a joint statement supporting the science of climate change issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of
Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

And here is what is a real “shame.” … A December 2010 poll by the University of Maryland found that: “Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring.” Regular Fox News viewers were 30% more likely to believe that most scientists don’t agree about climate change, when compared to Americans who don’t watch Fox News.

It is also a fact that people who watch Fox News are more inclined to understand that the events that took place at EAST ANGLIA UNIVERSITY actually happened because Fox thought it was an important piece of news that America should hear about. Meanwhile the big 3 and all the other alphabet soup newsies out there swept it under the rug and acted like it never happened,…. Fox News is villified because they have the audacity to bring stories that other newsies won’t. To lie, and alter SCIENTIFIC data to make it skew the way you want IS a big story,,,unless your friends in the media perform a CYA….The folks that work there have ADMITTED such and still this newspaper and this blog in particular ask us to believe it to be true and as reference you give us more studies and links that we’re supposed to trust as being true??? No Thanks,, Thank God for Fox News….

Yes, that is the narrative crafted by Fox News and others the very instant the emails became public… above dutifully repeated.

The narrative rests on the truly fantastic belief that thousands of scientists from countries around the world _ who belong to the organizations cited in #4 _ are all part of a gigantic coordinated hoax dating back more than 30 years. And despite the Fox narrative, the stolen East Anglia emails and a couple of its snippets focused on by opponents proved nothing of the sort.

Multiple lines of evidence, by many scientists with no connection to East Anglia, are pointing to the same conclusion. Look closely at the number of organizations in #4 that support the science. These are the groups that modern countries have created and relied on for many, may years for scientific veracity.

And on the contrarians’ side are exactly ZERO such groups … having an ideological television network angrily and loudly claiming otherwise does not magically make the science a “tie.”

(By the way, who stole those emails? And for what purpose? Strange, but Fox and those who trumpeted the narrative right out of the box, which gave no time for actual research, have no interest in pursuing what seems like an obvious angle to the story. At least one would think that Fox would want to know who to pin the “hero” medal on for revealing this “truth.” Maybe this was a private ceremony open to major AFP donors only… )

But Fox, in lockstep with fossil fuel interests that profit greatly from using the atmosphere as an open sewer for greenhouse gas, have informed their adherents that all the scientists are liars based on a snappy name given to a ginned-up non-scandal … and that apparently settles it, even as the Arctic ice cap continues to melt away. And we are supposed to trust that?

It boils down to an acceptance of scientific truth developed over years from many, many sources that conflicts with an economic political ideology. This blog comes down on the side of science… and will continue to do so.

Thank God for for free and unbiased inquiry into our physical world. It led to the Enlightenment and the creation of the modern world where technology has helped alleviate much human suffering.

By the way, it’s been a month since “wheninthecourse” at comment #1 claimed on this blog that the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has been “fudging data for decades” and then went silent when asked to offer any kind of proof. Any luck yet? Or should I consider your unsubstantiated claim essentially withdrawn?

That narrative was not “created” by Fox News… It is fact…. I just happen to choose NOT to drink your Kool-Aid…. (Green in color I’m sure).

To claim that Annenburgh is Non-Partisan is like saying that ABC-NBC and CBS are as well…. Do some looking around on the Annenburgh website and see what pops up and then tell me again how they are non-partisan…

No,,,,See,,,There is a big difference from “UNBIASED” to “Corrupt” and “Untrustworthy”. Those are your words…I never said they were corrupt or untrustworthy but they certainly are not unbiased either. That is such a typical move by liberals… Take what is ACTUALLY said and paint it to be ten times worse because it fits better to what the author says, never mind what the truth may be…I’ve done my homework Mr. Author,,I know what I’ve read,,,I know what I’ve seen, and I know what I’ve heard… There is NO SUCH THING as UNBIASED because everyone has an opinion!! One way or the other,,,there is an opinion..

I admit that I have a bias when it comes to GREEN studies and the waste of my dollars as well as others tax dollars on this “SKY is FALLING mentality … I consider it fear mongering…

Blowing things out of proportion to fit ones agenda I find SHAMEFUL as well…. If you can’t make your argument based on truth then don’t start the argument at all….

Just out of curiosity… Are you even going to try to back your claim that Annenberg is biased (and hence untrustworthy, it is not a real leap there, so you ought to get comfortable with that word; unless you are trying to say you trust biased sources. You aren’t, are you?).

Or do you just lob the “bias” grenade and then sputter off with some capitalized insults, as if that gives the words some kind of magical weight?

So the argument now is everyone is biased? Including PPC. So nothing is trustworthy. Welcome to the end of the debate. Everyone can go home.

Getting back to climate change: The scientific community that has been responsible for the rise of the modern, technological age, has reached a broad consensus that humanity is fouling its own nest and is doing so for generations yet unborn.

Why is it that some conservatives are in an absolute outrage over government debt, that is, the leaving of paper IOUs to our children? Paper IOUs that are subject to many kinds of manipulations and political deals. Something that can be negotiated with…

Yet these same people have no qualms about leaving a climate debt to our children that cannot be repaid with some kind of political deal. Physics cannot be deferred or bought out with some arrangement. Can someone explain this disconnect to me?

Is it because the fossil fuel industry, which has the most to lose from efforts to fight climate change, is intertwined with this particular political movement and its adherents?

Writing off all the science as a biased hoax is intellectually lazy, because it saves opponents the bare minimum of effort to even attempt to understand and assess the ever-growing mass of research.

Branding Annenberg as biased in less than an hour shows that PPC never really looked at any of it, and just lobbed the bias grenade reflexively because Annenburg contradicts his point of view. Lazy.

Climate debt??? Really??? Climate debt??? Oh goodie,, a new term to hang the SKY IS FALLING credo to….That is hilarious,,,,,Where should I mail my check?? Please… See, You get to lob “Corrupt” and “Untrustworthy”. grenades and hide behind them with things like Climate debt…. Sorry if I happen to want to live in the real world.. Good Grief!

In view of the continuing use of our atmosphere as an open sewer I can hope to see enough maturity for both looking at the facts and accepting accountability.

Hmmm. Rather than wait for the blame bomb to morph from the bias bomb, which may take even less time and continue the circling to nowhere, thought I’d offer appreciation of the depth and breadth you have offered, B. Perhaps if we can get beyond upmanship sometime and actually explore laziness we might see an observation that conservation of personal energies is inherent and so laziness does manifest. I say laziness manifests in both mind and body and both may be the same thing.

And if we recognize that conservation of personal energies is inherent, where might that lead? Beyond accepting accountability to taking responsibility?

In view of the continuing use of our atmosphere as an open sewer I can hope to see enough maturity for both looking at the facts and accepting accountability.

It is so refreshing to see that the unbiased author and #12 perform this dance in lockstep. If you two can continue this I bet we’ll see our climate debt shrinking by the moment… Who knows, you two might lead us to one day having a CLIMATE SURPLUS !!! (Notice the CAPS !!!) Thank you for saving the planet.

Or maybe they are working……… Probably has a job with some evil corporation out there that spews stuff into the atmosphere that harms people, trees and little birdies…They probably don’t know it but their actions are adding to our climate debt with their carbon footprint….. how rude of them… Thankfully though we have the unbiased author and the “H” Man out there working on the side of all things good and green.

Since this blog is written for and by people, people are included on the list of living things that can be harmed by pollution of the air, water and earth. A rudimentary Google search for pollution and human health will make this abundantly clear….

For some reason, the tenor of this debate reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns protests outside a green energy expo with a sign complaining “Unfair to Earth Poisoners.”

To be fair to NY State, NY moved to burning oil in a lot of power plants early on (ie. 1960s) to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, as modern scrubbers for coal plants didn’t come out to mid-1970s. NY City banned coal fired generating plants within city limits in the mid-1960s, forcing ConEdison to convert all of it’s plants to oil.

When oil prices went up in 1970s and there after, they switched over to natural gas, which was even cheaper to burn then oil and less polluting. New York State also happens to have the Saint Lawrence Power Project (950 MW) and Niagara Falls Power Project (2,500 MW), which make increadible amounts of carbon free power.

Near zero carbon emissions until the dams and ductwork need replacing, annon. Cement takes enormous amounts of energy to make, and it usually comes from coal.

The flooding created by dams usually releases large amounts of methane from anaerobic decomposition of the organics in and on the flooded lands (doesn’t much matter in this case if the organics are animal or vegetable). Methane is much more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Ok, it looks like any flooding @ Niagara is after the fact and damage is already done there, but we don’t want to go on about thinking hydro is simply clean when it is not, do we?

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

The Green Blog Search

Keyword search across all the entries in this blog.

Subscribe to blog via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.